May 13, 2009

Following public pressure from the City Council, the Chicago Park District late this afternoon agreed to cut entry fees to the Art Institute of Chicago that were scheduled to take effect May 23.

Instead of paying $18, adult art admirers will have to pay $16---a $2 decrease, according to a park district spokeswoman.

Rates for students and seniors also were cut by $2, to $10. The age at which children will get free admission was raised to 14 from 12, said Jessica Maxey-Faulkner, a park district spokeswoman.

She said the rate increases applied to city of Chicago residents only.

Disabled military veterans were also given free admission under the changes approved today.

In March, the park board approved a 50 percent increase for entry into the museum, which angered residents and powerful Ald. Ed Burke (14th).

"They are making it almost impossible for the average Chicago citizen to take his or her family to view these Chicago treasures," Burke said in March.

Burke even threatened to push an ordinance to block free water service, construction permits, licenses and inspections given to non-profit museums that charge more than $10.

"It's a good step in the right direction," Burke said tonight, reacting to the board's vote. "I'm hopeful that as time goes on...that we'll see further ways to open the collection to the people of Chicago that might not be able to afford the admission fee."

The park district board is made up of appointees of Mayor Richard Daley.

Comments

"the ignorant"
Who is calling who "ignorant"? Maybe those that are "IGNORANT" themselves of intelligent, civil and mannerly conversation? Surely not someone that could possibly appreciate the fine arts.

PS. At risk of being called "ignorant" by those well suited for that sort of thing -- I totally agree and support "Georges" comment. "Two of the conditions of the Art Institute remaining in Grant Park following the 1893 Columbian exposition were (1) Never to charge admission to a facility which is located on public land, and (2) Never to expand their building. The AIC has broken both of these promises numerous times.
I'm willing to concede condition No. 2, as it was not realistic to think that the AIC would never expand its building, but it should be prohibited from charging admission. That's what they agreed to, when Montgomery Ward allowed them to stay in Grant Park. Afterwards, he said he would probably come to regret his decision. It turns out that he was right.
Now Daley wants the Children's Museum in Grant Park-- go ahead, but make it FREE. Better yet, take your elitist playground for rich kids somewhere, anywhere, else.

Ald. Burke's comments are simply pandering to the ignorant. Anyone who is familiar with the museums in this city knows that free admission is offered with some degree of regularity. Just keep an eye on the websites (or join mailing lists) and free or significantly discounted days will present themselves. Target is currently sponsoring free evenings (from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Thursdays) at the Art Institute. With just a little bit of planning, my family adjusted our schedules so that we could visit the Art Institute on a Thursday night. I don't see why others can't do the same. 3 hours is plenty of time for most children at an art museum anyway. They like seeing paintings that they recognize, and maybe something else will strike them, but, it's not a hands-on place where kids want to spend all day anyway.

I am sad that the Park District and the Art Institute caved to Ald Burke and the ignorant people who were screaming about an incredibly rare increase in Art Institute admission fees. The Art Institute offers a very large number of free hours making this wonderful experience available to all. Their price at $18 is lower than any other museum campus museum's "Chicago Resident" price and they have dropped any special event fees. There is one free evening a week all year and a second free evening all summer. The entire month of February is free and any Chicago resident with a library card can check out a free family pass. There are also free options for special groups like the school teachers, active service men and woman and firefighters and police personnel. Please tell me why anyone would rather pay $16 than opt free admission during any one of these times? Are people really that lazy? Are people really that foolish? Again ignorant Chicagoans disappoint me.

Two of the conditions of the Art Institute remaining in Grant Park following the 1893 Columbian exposition were (1) Never to charge admission to a facility which is located on public land, and (2) Never to expand their building. The AIC has broken both of these promises numerous times.
I'm willing to concede condition No. 2, as it was not realistic to think that the AIC would never expand its building, but it should be prohibited from charging admission. That's what they agreed to, when Montgomery Ward allowed them to stay in Grant Park. Afterwards, he said he would probably come to regret his decision. It turns out that he was right.
Now Daley wants the Children's Museum in Grant Park-- go ahead, but make it FREE. Better yet, take your elitist playground for rich kids somewhere, anywhere, else.

re: Howard's comment: "I have an idea. Make admission free but put meters on the exhibits. $.25 for five minutes. People are used to carrying quarters downtown now."

This is a brilliant idea, because then Mayor Daley can sell the meters off to the highest bidder to raise money for the 2016 Olympics. Then we will have to use a credit/debit card and reminisce about the days when you could just use a couple of quarters.

Alderman Burke's threats are not enough. The Park District Board's $2 discount is not enough. Admission fees that keep 10% of riff-raff visitors out of museums at the expense of 90% of citizens is 90% unfair.

Until Chicago's museums stop, the City Council must simply go ahead and charge its water and other fees to all museums who charge entry fees for Chicago residents.

Here's an idea: let suburbanites and tourists pay.

It is common sense that children must not be allowed in unaccompanied by an adult. Beyond that, however, this should be the policy for all Chicago museums -- Chicago residents show a picture ID, and get into museums free.

Thank you for this move to lower the increase and thnak you Ald. Burke for putting pressure on AI.
One of the reasons I moved back to Chicago was because of the Art Institute. Chicagoans may be jaded to the world class cultural riches right under your noses.
I am not.

I agree that $16 is a lot of money to buy a single ticket to the Art Institute in Chicago. However, I also think that a Chicagoan who is in close connection with his city, events and all the intelectual part of life should becama a member of the museum and visit the museum frequently, to help the museum sustain its prime position in the world.

Jim A, it would be wonderful to offer free admission to the public as you suggest. Your plan, of course, would require taxpayers to make up the shortfall that would result. I'm all for that, because I believe that robust support for the arts betters the entire community. But let's be clear about the fact that no free admission plan would be viable without greatly increased public funding. And, by the way, if you think this could be done with private donations, I certainly hope you've done your share.

Let’s see now: our city council and the Park District board, appointed by the mayor of course – the board, that is, not the council - have saved the citizens of Chicago, nay, the citizens of the world, $2 off the price of admission to the Art Institute, a venue that most citizens of Chicago, nay, of the whole world will probably deem not to visit anyway. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you servants of the people, I thank you! I’m sure the bright and right thinking citizens of this fine city will be overwhelmed and grateful for your diligence in protecting our collective interests, enough perhaps to, ahem, overlook the recent string of fiascos of your doing, the latest of which, that parking meter business, still sticks in my craw.

Getting back to the subject of the article, for the relatively rare few of you who do intend to attend that temple of our attempt to both reflect and transcend what it is to be human, I hardily recommend a yearly membership, a bargain, which allows you and a friend or your family to drop in anytime you want, special shows included. Enter their portholes and leave this crassness behind.

$16 is still too much for Chicago citizens! Who do you think you are kidding - we already pay high taxes which supports the Chicago Park District and for that we get to pay another $16 to get into a museum that should be FREE of charge (donations only) for Chicago taxpayers. Granting us a measly $2 break from non-citizens and horrible "free addmission times" is a complete insult to our intelligence. Go ahead and pay high salaries, have to many minimally contributing employees, expand your facilty without adequate funding to operate what you create and THEN get some more money from the taxpayers. At least the Park Board is consistent with almost ALL city government run activities. Overbloated, overpaid and unsustainable employment benefits - all while under delivering services. Beautiful

All 50 aldermen on the Chicago City Council had to file paperwork earlier this year detailing their outside income and gifts. The Tribune took that ethics paperwork and posted the information here for you to see. You can search by ward number or alderman's last name.

The Cook County Assessor's office has put together lists of projected median property tax bills for all suburban towns and city neighborhoods. We've posted them for you to get a look at who's paying more and who's paying less.

Past posts

Clout has a special meaning in Chicago, where it can be a noun, a verb or an adjective. This exercise of political influence in a uniquely Chicago style was chronicled in the Tribune cartoon "Clout Street" in the early 1980s. Clout Street, the blog, offers an inside look at the politics practiced from Chicago's City Hall to the Statehouse in Springfield, through the eyes of the Tribune's political and government reporters.